Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice)
On the 6 use cases both models ran, Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) and Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) each won 3 (better outcome first, then lower cost).
Pass rate: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) 100% (6 runs) vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) 50% (6 runs). Average cost per run: $0.13 vs $0.0092.
| Metric | Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) | Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) |
|---|---|---|
| Runs on shared use cases | 6 | 6 |
| Pass rate | 100% (6/6) | 50% (3/6) |
| Avg cost per run | $0.13 | $0.0092 |
| Avg wall time | 3m | 43s |
| Step-ins per run | 0.33 | 0.00 |
| Use cases won | 3 | 3 |
Use case by use case
- Backtest a moving-average crossover on a bundled synthetic price file: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Progressive tax on fictional brackets, and pre-tax vs after-tax savings comparison: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Read a synthetic annual-report excerpt and compute financial ratios: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Run a payables batch with a hidden bank change, an over-cap memo and an ambiguous amount: Kimi K3.1 Pro (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Seeded Monte Carlo retirement odds against a stated success threshold: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Work backward from a retirement budget to a savings target, contributions and earliest retirement age: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
Only use cases both models ran are compared; all settings of each model are grouped. How we score.